The US is the only country with an Arctic coastline that has not yet ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, which could put it at a disadvantage in laying claim to what could be substantial resources on its outer continental shelf.

The Law of the Sea Treaty – or more formally, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – establishes navigational rights, territorial limits, economic and legal jurisdiction, and various other basic regulatory structures for delimiting countries’ rights in seas and oceans.

The treaty is “basically the rules of the road for how to do business, not just in the Arctic, but in other places, and how you prove out your extended continental shelf claims”, Fran Ulmer, Chair of the US Arctic Research Commission, told attendees of the USAEE/IAEE North American Conference in Anchorage, Alaska on July 29. Among other provisions, it establishes a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, using the limits of a country’s territorial waters as a baseline, that recognizes coastal states’ right to “exploit, develop, manage and conserve all resources”, including oil and gas.

“All of the other nations in the Arctic have already ratified this treaty. The United States has not,” Ulmer said.

More than 160 countries have ratified the treaty, and it has had broad-based and consistent support, with proponents including the military, the oil and gas industry, several presidential administrations and the US Chamber of Commerce, said Ulmer. But a select group of Senators objects to it on the grounds that it forces the US to cede some of its sovereign rights. “As we know, in the US Senate, if you can’t avoid a filibuster, the issue doesn’t even get to the floor,” she said.

This may, paradoxically, proscribe the US’ ability to represent its own interests in securing rights to potentially resource-rich areas. A USGS assessment has estimated undiscovered oil and gas resources north of the Arctic Circle at nearly 90 billion barrels of oil, more than 1,660 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and over 44 bln bbl of natural gas liquids.

“The United States is undertaking the science associated with being prepared to prove its claims to the extended continental shelf, but until the Senate ratifies this treaty, we will not be able to claim those additional lands,” Ulmer said. “Other nations are moving forward and proving up their claims, and the US is sitting on the sidelines without having ratified that treaty for really no good reason.”

Russia has been vocal – and demonstrative – about claiming ownership of the resources on its continental shelf. And Canada has made significant progress on the scientific evaluation, mapping, charting and submission of its claims. If the US does not ratify the treaty, “we won’t have anybody sitting there on the adjudication panel deciding all these borders for all these other countries”, Ulmer said.

“Most of the oil and gas resources that have been identified by the USGS would be on the continental shelves and in the near area likely to be extended through Law of the Sea extensions of continental shelves,” said Ulmer. “As the countries of the Arctic move forward under the Law of the Sea to expand their territories, that free-for-all area will shrink dramatically.”

Senator Orrin Hatch penned a piece for the Fox News website that raised numerous objections to the treaty, singling out a provision that would require payments to a centralized authority for exploitation of oil and gas or mineral continental shelf resources beyond a 200-nautical mile baseline. Payments, which would begin in the sixth year of production, would amount to 1% of the volume of production initially, and never exceed 7%.

But Ulmer argued that if the US fails to sign the treaty – and extend its continental shelf – it will end up with nothing to tax.

“Is 90% of something better than 0% of nothing? I think so,” she said. “That small taxation provision on the minerals that could be found on the sea bed beyond the 200-mile limit on our extended continental shelf to me is such a small thing in comparison to our ability to extend an area of multiple-sized of the state of Texas, have it be ours and have it be internationally recognized.”